This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

NATO wrestles with its role as hacking, ‘ambiguous’ warfare gain prominence

As Russia has shown willingness, capability in cyber warfare, NATO has struggled to address its role in defending its members.

Unidentified armed men patrol around a Ukraine's infantry base in Perevalne in March.
These soldiers, dubbed "little green men," have been part of Russia's campaign of "ambiguous" warfare. The fighters appeared to be Russian troops, but Vladimir Putin claimed they were local forces friendly to Russian causes. (Darko Vojinovic / The Associated Press)

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its role in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine have revealed the new tactics of war. And it’s a new style of warfare that the NATO military alliance — built on a history of nuclear weapons and mass conventional forces — is struggling to adapt to.

As leaders of the NATO nations prepare to meet in Wales, experts are sounding the alarm that the alliance has been slow to learn this new style of conflict that Russia has shown it can so ably wage.

And it’s forcing NATO to rethink how it reacts to new-age threats — and its threshold of when it goes to war.

“The Russian use of asymmetric warfare techniques ... represents the most immediate threat to its NATO neighbours and other NATO member states,” warned a July report for the Parliament in the United Kingdom.

Article Continued Below

It’s known as asymmetric, non-linear and next-generation warfare. But the name that might fit best is “ambiguous” warfare, a style of conflict that leaves an adversary confused, uncertain and vulnerable.

Experts say those are the very tactics Russia used in its annexation of Crimea and is employing again in Ukraine.

“It’s a wake-up call to that type of aggression,” said Roland Paris, an academic at the University of Ottawa.

Paris was part of an expert panel that flagged the emergence of such tactics in a report to NATO leadership in June.

The report said the crisis in Ukraine has revealed the threat of “non-linear forms of aggression.

“NATO needs to develop the doctrines, instruments and techniques to be able to defend its members against these threats,” the report said.

The British report echoed those findings, warning NATO is not well-prepared for a Russian threat against a member state, and is especially vulnerable to a so-called “unconventional” attack designed to “slip below NATO’s response threshold.”

According to the report, these tactics include:

Cyber attacks against state infrastructure networks and websites.

Widespread dissemination of often-false information to confuse and sway public opinion at home and abroad.

Employing propaganda to encourage the adversary’s population to undertake subversive activity.

Economic attacks to destabilize the economy, such as using sanctions and blocking trade flows.

Such tactics describe the playbook that Russia has been following in its moves on Ukraine.

In Crimea, so-called “little green men” — soldiers so named because they weren’t wearing identification — occupied key positions. While they appeared to be Russian troops, President Vladimir Putin insisted they were members of local defence forces.

In the conflict with Ukraine, Russian energy giant Gazprom — which is majority owned by the state — announced in June it was cutting off natural gas shipments to Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly massed troops on its border with Ukraine, prompting NATO to warn that it fears an invasion is in the offing.

“Events in Ukraine demonstrate in particular Russia’s ability to effectively paralyze an opponent in the pursuit of its interests,” the British report said.

But events also raise questions whether NATO is prepared to address these new tactics, including whether the alliance can counter a cyberattack and mount its own offensive cyber war, the British report said.

“In many circumstances, such operations are also deniable, increasing the difficulties for an adversary (in) mounting a credible and legitimate response,” the British report said.

In particular, Article 5 of the alliance’s founding treaty spells out the principle of collective defence, declaring that an “armed attack” against one alliance member shall be considered an attack against all.

However, in the era of asymmetric warfare, a future attack on a NATO nation might not be “armed,” meaning there would be no imperative for other alliance members to respond.

That’s why when they gather in Wales in September, leaders of the NATO nations will consider how the alliance should respond to such attacks and whether a new doctrine is needed. In particular, NATO must consider whether “armed” should be removed from the treaty definition of an attack, the British report said.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com